13 April, 2016

Why most of the Panama Papers have been kept in the dark?

by
Michalis Yianneskis

The
impressive and gigantic revelations of Panama Papers had brought in
the light activities of politicians, tycoons and businessmen from
around the world. With the spotlight turned on such an important
revelations, the fact that they do not include politicians from
certain countries and most of the documents will not be published,
rather overshadowed.

Two notable exceptions: Germany and US

The
newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which was in the forefront of the
revelations, initially said it would not make public all the
documents and all the names mentioned. Also, the newspaper justified
the paucity of revelations regarding Germany and the US, stating that
there are no "traces" of political involvement of these two
countries. Other organizations/newspapers which had a major role in
the revelations, also made similar statements.

At the same
time, it's a mystery how the number of the offshore companies that
appear in Panama Papers is relatively small for the United States
(3,072 companies compared to 9,670 from the UK, without the tax
havens of the English Channel) and Germany (173, compared to 223 from
Greece).

The obvious
explanation for these observations is that no politician and
relatively few entrepreneurs from these countries are related with
offshore activities through Mossack Fonseca, the company at the
center of the revelations. Yet, is there any other explanation apart
from the obvious?

The way
and the reasons of the revelations

The "deep
throat" of the revelations contacted with Süddeutsche Zeitung
in January 2015. Until the publication of Panama Papers, 14 months
later, nearly 400 journalists from 80 countries analyzed a volume of
data which was ten times larger than all previous big revelations
(Wikileaks, Luxleaks, etc.). Therefore, naturally some questions
come.

First, did
the "deep throat" had motives for leaking the data other
than just "publishing the crimes"? Second, how secret could
remain the whole process from the US secret services which, as shown
by the revelations of Edward Snowden, are watching almost everything?
(Unless of course the secret services promoted the revelations). Two
possible answers for the questions above have been published so far.

Putin's
"finger"

Clifford
Gaddy of Brookings Institution in the United States, supports that
the source of the leaks is the Russian secret service RFM, which is
totally controlled by Putin. As Gaddy points, despite that Putin's
name is on the first pages of the newspapers, he is not related
directly with the revelations. The amount of money involved with
people from his environment is small compared to previous cases of
corruption that have seen the light of publicity.

Gaddy argues
that the main objective of the revelations are individuals and
companies that are not included in Panama Papers. According to Gaddy,
Putin sent a message to the Americans and other Western leaders that
there are documents that can be published in the future. Namely, that
if the Western leaders do not appear more cooperative in the
relations with Russia, there will be leaks for their own financial
irregularities too. Whether and to what extent Gaddy's theory is
reasonable, remains unknown. Gaddy does not cite any evidence to
support it.

Western
interests "finger"

A different
view expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to
Uzbekistan. Murray accused the government of Uzbekistan for human
rights abuses, and then fired from the British diplomatic service.
Today mainly involved with political activism.

Murray
argues that the real agenda of Panama Papers revelations, is to cover
the 1% of the West that controls the wealth. This view is based
mainly on the methodology applied by the journalists and newspapers,
and the funding by the organizations involved with the revelations.

The
newspapers that have published the Panama Papers have admitted that
they "filtered" the documents, focusing primarily on
countries that violated various UN embargo. Moreover, they said that
most of the material they have in their hands will remain secret.
Murray notes that newspapers want to avoid effects similar to those
of previous revelations, such as when the Guardian was forced to
destroy hard disks with the revelations of Snowden.

That is,
Murray believes that newspapers avoid to confront the big interests
of the West˙ restricted
to publish only some "collateral damage" concerning the
(former) prime minister of Iceland, the father of British Prime
Minister Cameron, etc. The view of Murray cannot be confirmed
without access to the files of the newspapers, but his arguments seem
reasonable.

Follow
the money

One way
someone to identify potential perpetrators of the revelations and
verifying the correctness of these views, is to examine their
financing, the known «follow the money».

Who has
financed Brookings, Gaddy's "speech stand"? The largest
sponsors of the institute include the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the bank J.P. Morgan Chase, J.L. Thornton, former
president of Goldman Sachs, magnate David Rubenstein, and, the
government of Qatar.

Who is
funding the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
that had a major role in the revelations? The Centre for Public
Integrity US, which in turn is funded by the Open Society Foundation
(Soros mogul), the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and
other "charitable" institutions. While at the bottom of the
website of Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project which
published the Panama Papers, the Open Society Foundation and USAID
are listed as sponsors.

The USAID is
infamous for hidden interventions in other countries to support US
geopolitical agenda. A recent example was the attempt to destabilize
the Cuban government in 2014. Therefore, the Wikileaks justifiably
bell rang when they saw the involvement of USAID and similar
organizations, and not because, as reported in various media, became
"jealous" of the "competition" with the success
leakage of Panama Papers.

Murray is
probably right when he warns that we should not expect a "genuine"
revelation of capitalism in the West, and that the dirty secrets of
the Western corporations will remain unpublished. The Panama Papers
have obviously offered significant revelations. However, as it was
written by the writer Arthur Conan Doyle, "there is nothing more
deceptive than an obvious fact".